5 ms·

If by "sexism" you mean women and men being treated differently, of course it exists - because women and men are different. Women have intrinsic value, so wars

If by "sexism" you mean women and men being treated differently, of course it exists - because women and men are different. Women have intrinsic value, so wars are being fought over them (not only in the Iliad, but also in "primitive societies"). Talking about the past is also not so straightforward. The world was very different, for example I wouldn't be surprised if many jobs simply didn't make sense for women. Like if they required a lot of physical labor (which presumably was most jobs). So women being excluded from such jobs might not have been active discrimination but simply common sense (as in "not worth considering"). For the other subjects there also were or might have been reasons that simply don't exist anymore today. For example it seems likely that marriage and women taking care of the household was about the only way to survive. Today our survival is much easier than it used to be, because there are many more amenities and things provided for.

wpietri 12y ago
> Women have intrinsic value That, in a word, is bullshit. I will accept "all humans have intrinsic value" as one way of stating a basic human-rights assumption. But otherwise, value is always rooted in whom the object is valuable to. This is just a fancy way of saying "men value women as property". Even you could tell that sounds wrong, so you erase the maleness of the view and pretend it's some sort of objective thing. > So women being excluded from such jobs might not have been active discrimination This is so distinct from recorded historical reality that you are just embarrassing yourself. Please go take a women's studies class. MIT has a bunch: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/womens-and-gender-studies/ http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/womens-and-gender-studies/ Half-assed speculation is occasionally useful in the absence of fact (although only occasionally). But you just making shit up as reasons why we can ignore the long history of the systemic oppression of women? That says very little about the reality, and a lot about what you'd like to be true.
- facepalm 12y ago
  "That, in a word, is bullshit. I will accept "all humans have intrinsic value" as one way of stating a basic human-rights assumption. But otherwise, value is always rooted in whom the object is valuable to." No - take a class in evolution theory, MIT has a bunch. About the second part: of course it is a gross oversimplification, but I still think you can not simply judge the past by today's standards. How many of those classes have you taken yourself? Any precise data points to state, or just a vague feeling of injustice? I am actually interested in learning more about the reasons. I tried to find information on why women were not allowed to study at universities, but couldn't find any. But what if there are some? For example maybe risk of death was too high for women (childbirth and all), so it was too expensive to let them study? Reasons like that wouldn't apply in today's society - healthcare and survival during pregnancy is way better, and there is much more surplus money. But you can not transfer our situation to the past. I think I read about some parts of Africa recently that girls can't study there because it is too expensive. Of course, assuming the risk was a reason (I am just guessing), it was not fair. But I wouldn't call it evil discrimination, either.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    >No - take a class in evolution theory, MIT has a bunch. Ah, the fallacious appeal to nature, a classic logical error. What is natural tells us nothing about what is right. Violence, for example, is quite natural, but it is wrong. Sickness and death are natural, but a large part of human effort is spent fighting that. > I still think you can not simply judge the past by today's standards. I'm not. I'm pointing out that the problems of today are rooted in a three fucking thousand year history. That people who supposedly "see sexism in everything" today have reasonable grounds to suspect that that systemic gender discrimination didn't just disappear yesterday afternoon. And by implication, that people who continually demand proof of sexism over and over are ignorant, often willfully, of the historical context. > Any precise data points to state, or just a vague feeling of injustice? It is not my job to spoon-feed you. It is not my job to cure your ignorance. It's your job. All I'm saying is that your ignorance is so obvious, so immense, that it means your half-assed speculation (in which you persist) is not worth discussing. It is, in Pauli's memorable phrase, not even wrong.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      "What is natural tells us nothing about what is right." I wasn't talking about what was right, just about what is driving human behavior. You are free to believe women are not more valuable than men. But if you don't pursue wombs enough, your genes and your attitude will not make it into the next generation. That is not a tragedy, but it results in men valuing wombs being the majority. Do you like sex? Would you rather have sex with a human or with a goat? Would you say that is merely a cultural issue, and people could be retrained to prefer sex with goats? Would you say those preferences are merely a cultural issue? "All I'm saying is that your ignorance is so obvious" Well you haven't convinced me of your authority. You didn't even provide a single example. Don't forget that men's lives were different in the past, too. Sure you can point out hardship for women, but without comparing to the hardships of men it is meaningless. For one thing, it seems to me a lot of effort was spent in the past to protect women (shield them from war and hard labor). Sure there were downsides, too, but it doesn't seem obvious that society just despised women.
      - 12y ago

wpietri 12y ago

> Women have intrinsic value That, in a word, is bullshit. I will accept "all humans have intrinsic value" as one way of stating a basic human-rights assumption. But otherwise, value is always rooted in whom the object is valuable to. This is just a fancy way of saying "men value women as property". Even you could tell that sounds wrong, so you erase the maleness of the view and pretend it's some sort of objective thing. > So women being excluded from such jobs might not have been active discrimination This is so distinct from recorded historical reality that you are just embarrassing yourself. Please go take a women's studies class. MIT has a bunch: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/womens-and-gender-studies/ http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/womens-and-gender-studies/ Half-assed speculation is occasionally useful in the absence of fact (although only occasionally). But you just making shit up as reasons why we can ignore the long history of the systemic oppression of women? That says very little about the reality, and a lot about what you'd like to be true.

facepalm 12y ago
"That, in a word, is bullshit. I will accept "all humans have intrinsic value" as one way of stating a basic human-rights assumption. But otherwise, value is always rooted in whom the object is valuable to." No - take a class in evolution theory, MIT has a bunch. About the second part: of course it is a gross oversimplification, but I still think you can not simply judge the past by today's standards. How many of those classes have you taken yourself? Any precise data points to state, or just a vague feeling of injustice? I am actually interested in learning more about the reasons. I tried to find information on why women were not allowed to study at universities, but couldn't find any. But what if there are some? For example maybe risk of death was too high for women (childbirth and all), so it was too expensive to let them study? Reasons like that wouldn't apply in today's society - healthcare and survival during pregnancy is way better, and there is much more surplus money. But you can not transfer our situation to the past. I think I read about some parts of Africa recently that girls can't study there because it is too expensive. Of course, assuming the risk was a reason (I am just guessing), it was not fair. But I wouldn't call it evil discrimination, either.
- wpietri 12y ago
  >No - take a class in evolution theory, MIT has a bunch. Ah, the fallacious appeal to nature, a classic logical error. What is natural tells us nothing about what is right. Violence, for example, is quite natural, but it is wrong. Sickness and death are natural, but a large part of human effort is spent fighting that. > I still think you can not simply judge the past by today's standards. I'm not. I'm pointing out that the problems of today are rooted in a three fucking thousand year history. That people who supposedly "see sexism in everything" today have reasonable grounds to suspect that that systemic gender discrimination didn't just disappear yesterday afternoon. And by implication, that people who continually demand proof of sexism over and over are ignorant, often willfully, of the historical context. > Any precise data points to state, or just a vague feeling of injustice? It is not my job to spoon-feed you. It is not my job to cure your ignorance. It's your job. All I'm saying is that your ignorance is so obvious, so immense, that it means your half-assed speculation (in which you persist) is not worth discussing. It is, in Pauli's memorable phrase, not even wrong.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    "What is natural tells us nothing about what is right." I wasn't talking about what was right, just about what is driving human behavior. You are free to believe women are not more valuable than men. But if you don't pursue wombs enough, your genes and your attitude will not make it into the next generation. That is not a tragedy, but it results in men valuing wombs being the majority. Do you like sex? Would you rather have sex with a human or with a goat? Would you say that is merely a cultural issue, and people could be retrained to prefer sex with goats? Would you say those preferences are merely a cultural issue? "All I'm saying is that your ignorance is so obvious" Well you haven't convinced me of your authority. You didn't even provide a single example. Don't forget that men's lives were different in the past, too. Sure you can point out hardship for women, but without comparing to the hardships of men it is meaningless. For one thing, it seems to me a lot of effort was spent in the past to protect women (shield them from war and hard labor). Sure there were downsides, too, but it doesn't seem obvious that society just despised women.
    - 12y ago